Note: This has been send out to two seperate mailing lists, so if you get
multiple copies, or your email filters go wonky on you, I apologize.
I am interested in developing a "curriculum" so to speak of Dirtside II games
that will demonstrate the flexibility of the system to simulate games of
multiple genres, preferably widely varied genres.
What I have in mind is to run three different games, each with different
scenarios, one showing how DSII can do WWII conflicts, the second representing
modern conflicts, and the final scenario showing a futuristic conflict.
I'd like each game to really show Dirtside II in all its glory, while still
providing a good "feel" for the genre being played. I want to avoid the only
real difference between the scenarios being the models played with. In fact,
it would kind of be ideal if the stats between scenarios kind of reflected how
much better an Abrams is than a Tiger, and how much better a Bolo MkIV is than
an Abrams. While someone would be more than welcome to participate in all
three games, it shouldn't be necessary for them to appreciate the goodness
that is DSII...
I'll have time for play-testing and whatnot before I really try to start
showing this at cons, so I'm no pressed for time. What I'm asking for is input
on what to consider, look out for, avoid or include to make this thing a
success.
Comments? Opinions?
Flak said:
> played with. In fact, it would kind of be ideal if the stats
You'd have a very tough time doing this with quality levels. Basically, if
you're going to have Bolos and such on the high end and Shermans on the low
end, you won't have much room to differentiate between a veteran Panther and a
green Sherman, or between an Iraqi T72 and an Abrams fresh from Ft Irwin.
However, there are some things you can do. Movement modes and distance would
be one area. Communications would be another. Number and quality of missiles
would be a third. Weapons types, of
course--the guy who had to use a 50mm cannon in the WW2 scenario will
> Note: This has been send out to two seperate mailing lists, so if
Love the idea.....hope you get enough input of ideas for it (sorry i can't
contribute much myself due to the ever-present lack of time), but when
you're ready to roll let us know and we'll provide some con support in the way
of prize stuff, vouchers and so on!
G'day,
> What I have in mind is to run three different games, each
Sounds cool.
> In fact, it would kind of be ideal if the stats between
The only hot potato may be reflecting the resolution within an era as well as
keeping it between eras. The place to start may be to sit down and decide what
you want in the scenarios. Sorry my knowledge of modern military history and
weapons tech is still poor so don't grimace to much as I take a ham fisted
swipe at this (Oerjan would be the person to get help from I'd say)
Anyway lets say....
WWII = German tanks vs Soviet Tanks
- CFEs
- tracked
- RFACs, HVC and/or HKPs depending on what's appropriate (if it fits
with the real effects etc, may be you should steer clear of buying the
absolute max size weapon that fits the vehicle and go for smaller sized
weapons, so you can have extra punch in the other era's too)
- even though there is no incentive in the current DS design system not
to have full armour maybe for this exercise you could buy less armour than max
if that better matches reality, only have ablative or reactive if that is
appropriate (sorry don't know much about the tanks really)
- no stealth (I would've thought)
- no missiles (though I'm on shakey ground here...)
- artillery and lots of it from what I've heard... biochem if you so
desire, but nukes are out obviously (not that I'd put these in "standard"
games
anyway), but treat all calls as if artillery off-board (even if on)
- aerospace would be fine, but no VTOLs (sorry if this is telling you
how to suck eggs I'm kinda thinking out loud here)
- basic system qualities (e.g. fire control)
- if you want to have infantry have them as pure foot sloggers, in
trucks or parachutes (they may well have had APCs too, I'm not sure myself but
the accounts I've read don't mention them)
- I'd steer clear of water related stuff (like boats) for this one
(though you could use it as a barrier down one side of the board
Modern = US vs Iraq (or some what if scenario if you prefer)
- CFE's (I'm guessing)
- tracked
- RFACs, HVC and/or HKPs depending on what's appropriate (this time
buying big guns of they fit, to show the extra punch)
- the fancy armour types would now be OK (as far as I know)
- GMS, ECM, PDS, LAD etc no OK
- Enhanced sensors (keep superior for your sci-fi version)
- some stealth if you consider it miniaturisation or something
- artillery
- aerospace and VTOLs (if helicopters actually do feature in modern tank
battles)
- use of APCs and line infantry, IAVRs
- I'd still keep water out of it for now (or have it as a barrier or
river to roll across)
Sci-fi = kravak vs human (to really capture scifi)
- example of potential humans = hmts, gev, fancy armour, some stealth,
enhanced and maybe some superior sensors, dffgs and hels
- example of potential kv = fgp, grav, fancy armour, stealth, superior
systems, mdcs
- GMS. ECM, PDS, LAD etc all present
- artillery, aerospace and VTOLs
- power armour infantry
- walkers if you like them (I know some people don't)
- oversized or modular vehicles if you're trying to catch people's eye
(oversize are easy, but modular can be trickier in a con setting depends how
confident you are)
- you could have water bodies in this one as they won't phase the
grav/gev
Apart from these ideas you may also want to think if there's specific facets
of the various eras not covered by DS as is and whether or not a few
modifications need to be made... especially in the area of communications.
Cheers
> Beth wrote:
> >In fact, it would kind of be ideal if the stats between
I say the same thing as Laserlight: with only 3 quality levels, there's simply
no way you can cover the entire spread from WW2 to OGRE and retain any flavour
within each time period... if a modern fire control system is "Superior", then
the very best stuff available in WW2 might rank as good as
"Basic" by standing on its toes and stretching as high up as possible -
and that leaves no grading for the OGRE's systems. And so on for the other
types of tech systems (guns, mobility, armour...).
So, well... I'd concentrate on getting each time period "feel right" within
itself rather than attempt to make WW2 "feel right" when pitted against
modern or SciFi stuff :-/
Later,
> I say the same thing as Laserlight: with only 3 quality levels, there's
> simply no way you can cover the entire spread from WW2 to OGRE and
Yes, this is the way. The T-34 had lousy gun sights compared to the
German tanks, for example.
I wonder if the best thing to do is to play a WWII game, set up to show the
difference between the sides. Then take the best tanks of the period, and
knock down their abilities (fire control in the main, and weapon grade, and
maybe tweak the armour). Then play them against a modern force. Works very
well if the same player plays the WWII stuff in both.
For the next step, knock down the modern stuff, and play against the future
stuff. Then finally, play a 'classic' Dirtside II game.
> On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 22:07, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Thanks, but stonking hard, as I learned reading your insightful comments.
> > In fact, it would kind of be ideal if the stats between
Yes, I think I'll have to back off of the consistency between games and
instead stick to keeping the games self-contained, but still using a
common ruleset, that being DSII.
I've been reading the SGII rules too much I think. I'm not REAL familiar with
any GZG rules as yet, and I think I confuzzed the
fine-grain detail of some elements of SGII and thought I could get that
out of DSII. I'm glad I gave myself a long time to work out this stuff.
So: The "Hot Potato" of keeping stats between genres consistent is dropped. I
like mashed potatoes better anyway...
> Anyway lets say....
Keeping in mind that I'm no longer looking at keeps stats consistent across
genres, I'll consider that WWII equipment might not have had the technology
(metallurgy, miniaturization, etc) to fit everything that the DSII system
allows to be designed into a hull.
> - even though there is no incentive in the current DS design system
Here, I think it depends. Jadpanzers had a very low silhouette for
their armor and armament. Perhaps a "until they move/fire" stealth is
appropriate for Jagdpazers that are hull-down. I'll have to re-read
just how stealth works to decide if that fits...
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/jagd.html
(Note: Incidentally, that site is a great one for checking out this or that
historical AFV: www.wwiivehicles.com)
> - no missiles (though I'm on shakey ground here...)
Definitely no missiles for WWII. Rockets? On aircraft for late-war,
and as artillery, most definitely.
> - artillery and lots of it from what I've heard... biochem if you so
Yup. For WWII, I'll have to figure out something (probably a modified
procedure for calling arty strikes) to show the vastly different doctrines for
calling fire. The US and British arty was much more
responsive than German arty in Late-war. (I'll be trying to represent
Late-war anyway.)
Biochem I'm not sure I'd use. I'm not entirely sure it would be accurate. I
have yet to see a specific reference to it's use in WWII (WWI, certainly, but
not WWII.) Someone who is a bit more up on WWII history, please enlighten me.
> but nukes are out obviously (not that I'd put these in "standard"
games
> anyway), but treat all calls as if artillery off-board (even if on)
NP...
> - basic system qualities (e.g. fire control)
Some Shermans(?) had stabilizing gyroscopes for their main guns. Sometimes
they even worked! Maybe I'll find a way to fit that in with a higher FC that
worked "sometimes".
> - if you want to have infantry have them as pure foot sloggers, in
APC's were certainly in use, though not as we think of them today.
Think half-tracks like the:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/sdKfz251.html
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/halftracks.html
Or an obsolete tank with the turret and crew-related innards taken out
like the Canadian Kangaroo, which is mentioned on the site, but not covered
with any detail.
> - I'd steer clear of water related stuff (like boats) for this one
Yeah. I agree. Though it's a real cool element to have, I don't want to have
anything that gets "left behind" (landing craft) or acts as a "god of the
battle field" (naval guns) because I want pretty much to
make sure that what I have to build/bring to the convention is used for
the entire battle, or at least until destroyed.
> Modern = US vs Iraq (or some what if scenario if you prefer)
Probably a "what if". I don't want to create a whole new set of desert
terrain/models for thing to look right if I can avoid it. Probably a US
vs. China or some remnant of the old Soviet Union getting uppity. The
background will be strictly: "The two forces are fighting because of some
conflict over their groups respective policies. What those policies are is
irrelevant except for the fact that it gives us an excuse to play what will
hopefully be a fun game."
> - CFE's (I'm guessing)
Must re-read DSII. (Hereafter indicated by: "MRDSII")
> - tracked
MRDSII
> - the fancy armour types would now be OK (as far as I know)
MRDSII
> - Enhanced sensors (keep superior for your sci-fi version)
I think adding VTOLS would be a very good idea for this genre. Not only are
the available modern helicopter models really cool, but there are helicopters
set up to work as teams: One fast, light bird gets eyes on a target and the
"gunship" pops the tank from well outside visual range. This would really
seperate the WWII from the Moderns.
> - use of APCs and line infantry, IAVRs
Still in agreement. Water will be limited to maybe a small river with many
fording spots if it's in the game at all.
> Sci-fi = kravak vs human (to really capture scifi)
I have to get some sci-fi micro-armor, and I'll be likely to pick up
Epic40K tyranids for the Aliens and then check out whatever GZG figs I like
for the Humans.
> - example of potential humans = hmts, gev, fancy armour, some stealth,
For the futuristic game I want to pull out all the stops. I envision
futuristic warfare to be limited in scope, with surgical assaults being
performed with massive amounts of support from ortillery, aerospace and
whatnot. I want to do the orbital insertion and everything.
> - power armour infantry
I'd like to include walkers, but more like the Heavy Gear (small walkers) idea
than the BattleTech sized ones. I don't like the idea of something that
couldn't walk on anything but exposed bedrock or a
prepared surface becuase of the lbs/sq.in on it's feet.
> - oversized or modular vehicles if you're trying to catch people's eye
Hmm... I hadn't considered that. It could be fun, to make the last game
a technically superior force attacking the rag-tag locals. The locals
would have been swept aside except for this one really stonking huge and
dangerous AI tank (or bioconstruct) that JUST WON'T DIE! You know, the
recurring theme out of the B.O.L.O. series of short-stories. I'll
consider that.
> - you could have water bodies in this one as they won't phase the
Yeah! Lots of water. Maybe enough to make it a bit of an island hop.
> Apart from these ideas you may also want to think if there's specific
Now that I've dropped the desire to have it consistent between the different
genres, I think I've made it much simpler for myself. I also think most of the
work is done for me. It's a matter of designing the scenarios and working
through the rules until I can competently run a game.
Thanks a bunch to everyone who answered! Keep the input coming. I'll be making
the whole project a "Look Pretty" thing when I go to the con(s). So when it's
all said and done, I'll make the
house-rules/scenarios/handouts available for someone to post on their
DSII-related site.
> Cheers
> On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 13:19, John Sowerby wrote:
+++SNIPPED FOR BREVITY+++
> I wonder if the best thing to do is to play a WWII game, set up to
Actually, that does sound like a fun thing to do. Perhaps I'll do both, but in
two different series of games:
Series One: Each genre self-contained, WWII, Moderns, Sci-fi.
Series Two: Your suggestion of pitching each genre against what is
historically the next genre.
Big cons are multi-day affairs, so I could run each series over the
course of a day and still have break between scenarios and hopefully still
have a day or so for "goofing off".
Whee!
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> Nobody used gas warfare in the Second World War.
The Allies were very concerned about possible German nerve gas usage and
brought over shiploads of poison gas to use in retaliation should the Germans
ever use it. In fact, one of the ships carrying gas had some sort of accident
(was hit by bomb? Don't remember exactally) and ended up spilling some.
However, the only battlefield usage was by the Japanese against Chinese. Gas,
toxin, and everything else they could come up with.
> On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 17:11, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
Missiles, or rockets? My understanding of the two terms is that
Missiles are guided, capable of in-flight adjustments to their
trajectory and rockets are "dumb" basically rising on a booster and falling
where the trajectory takes them.
> > Biochem I'm not sure I'd use. I'm not entirely sure it would be
Good. I'm glad I wasn't way off in ignorance field with that one. I remember
it had something to do (in part) with extensive use of horses in German arty
units and concerns about shifting winds...
> Greetings
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 17:11, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
The Germans developed amongst other things a "smart bomb" although I would
call it a missile (a rocket was fired upon release from the aircraft, giving
the needed inertia). These were equipped with a TV emitter and the weapons
officer could guide it by radio. When the Allies
started jamming these transmissions, the Germans built a wire guided version.
Apparently these missiles were quite effective against the shipping used in
the Salerno landings. All this is from the top of my head, I would have to
look up my references. I have seen one of those IRL however.
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
Hi,
A missile has nearly the same definition as projectile, with the distinction
of having a defined target. A rocket has a rocket engine as its means of
propulsion. The terms are not interchangeable. For example, a Tomahawk is a
missile that is not a rocket, an ICBM and a Sidewinder are both missiles and
rockets, and the Me163 Komet is a rocket that is not a missile.
Guided or unguided should properly be used only to determine whether the
trajectory is controllable after launch.
Cheers,
> Tony Christney wrote:
> A missile has nearly the same definition as projectile, with the
Err... nope. At work we define missiles roughly as "projectiles which have
both active propulsion and an active guidance system". Whether or not it
has a defined *target* is completely irrelevant, since that's up to the end
user rather than us designers and manufacturers :-/
Thus a STRIX target-seeking AT mortar round is a "projectile" rather
than a "missile" nor a "rocket" since it lacks an integral active propulsion
unit to boost the velocity once outside the mortar.
> A rocket has a rocket engine as its means of propulsion.
Tell that to the US armed forces who insist on calling the AT4 (aka M136) a
"rocket launcher"... :-7
> The terms are not interchangeable.
Correct. Though your definition of "missile" is iffy too :-/
> For example, a Tomahawk is a missile that is not a rocket, an ICBM and
The Me163 wasn't a "missile" in spite of having an active guidance system
(ie., the pilot) because missiles are supposed to be one-way,
single-mission things while the Me163 was supposed to land (and return
its pilot alive) after a mission. Kamikaze flying bombs can be considered
"missiles", though.
The M76 LAW projectile is a rocket which is not a missile.
> Guided or unguided should properly be used only to determine whether
Guided or unguided is what defines whether your one-way single-mission
projectile is a missile or a rocket-assisted/rocket-propelled grenade
:-/
Regards,
As you can see, these messages are waaaay too late, something weird seems to
have gone on with my mail program.
> Ludo Toen wrote:
> Flak Magnet wrote:
> At 6:24 PM +0200 7/15/02, Ludo Toen wrote:
BV 246 (orignally BV 226) the Hagelkron (hailstone) GT 2000 Zitteroschen Fritz
X (or FX 1400): used against the Roma, the Italia, Warpite, Spartan, Janus,
Savannah, and Uganda plus numerous merchant ships. HS293: sank the Sloop HMS
Egret (first Air to surface guided missile casualty) plus 1 greek and 4
british vessels.